All 3 found guilty in Arburry trial

[Omar]

This case reminds me of something I find annoying about our justice system. It really has nothing to do with this particular case exactly, I didn't pay attention to the trial but it at least sounds like the verdict was correct. Having said that:

What annoys me is that when someone commits a crime, they don't just get prosecuted for that crime. It seems like they stack as many charges as they can on them. In other words, they want to make sure they screw them over as hard as they can. Instead of being guilty of just one crime, they commit one crime and end up being guilty of five different charges. Doesn't quite seem fair. Seems like if you steal something, you should pay the price for stealing something, without a bunch of BS ratcheting up the punishment. Just make the punishment harsher if that's what you want to do.

Guess they have to keep the lawyers employed.

[Dr. Who]

This case reminds me of something I find annoying about our justice system. It really has nothing to do with this particular case exactly, I didn't pay attention to the trial but it at least sounds like the verdict was correct. Having said that:

What annoys me is that when someone commits a crime, they don't just get prosecuted for that crime. It seems like they stack as many charges as they can on them. In other words, they want to make sure they screw them over as hard as they can. Instead of being guilty of just one crime, they commit one crime and end up being guilty of five different charges. Doesn't quite seem fair. Seems like if you steal something, you should pay the price for stealing something, without a bunch of BS ratcheting up the punishment. Just make the punishment harsher if that's what you want to do.

Guess they have to keep the lawyers employed.

Typically, they serve the sentences concurrently, so really it's just the length of the sentence for the most serious charge, unless the defendant is incorrigible or the crime so heinous that they are sentenced to serve the sentences consecutively. I think it's to ensure that they don't skate entirely if they can't get a guilty verdict on the most serious charge, they have lesser charges that the jury can possibly support beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Omar]

Typically, they serve the sentences concurrently, so really it's just the length of the sentence for the most serious charge, unless the defendant is incorrigible or the crime so heinous that they are sentenced to serve the sentences consecutively. I think it's to ensure that they don't skate entirely if they can't get a guilty verdict on the most serious charge, they have lesser charges that the jury can possibly support beyond a reasonable doubt.

They're served concurrently? That seems bizarre, but I guess it's better.
I can see offering a jury a choice of "what kind of homicide is this"?

[Dr. Who]

They're served concurrently? That seems bizarre, but I guess it's better.
I can see offering a jury a choice of "what kind of homicide is this"?

A jury is not empowered to legally determine charges, only to assess whether the facts adduced at trial would support a finding of guilty under any of the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[FindersKeepers]

This case reminds me of something I find annoying about our justice system. It really has nothing to do with this particular case exactly, I didn't pay attention to the trial but it at least sounds like the verdict was correct. Having said that:

What annoys me is that when someone commits a crime, they don't just get prosecuted for that crime. It seems like they stack as many charges as they can on them. In other words, they want to make sure they screw them over as hard as they can. Instead of being guilty of just one crime, they commit one crime and end up being guilty of five different charges. Doesn't quite seem fair. Seems like if you steal something, you should pay the price for stealing something, without a bunch of BS ratcheting up the punishment. Just make the punishment harsher if that's what you want to do.

Guess they have to keep the lawyers employed.

I agree with this.

It's annoying to see taxpayer monies wasted trying criminals, such as murderers who will never get out of prison, on additional charges when they're already incarcerated.

What's worse is the trumped-up, or unrelated, charges they have them plead guilty to in order to keep a case from going to court. The defendants do it as part of a plea bargain, but it has nothing to do with truth, honest, and fact.

Case in point -- Michael Cohen who pled guilty to a number of charges the state could never have convicted him on, such as violating campaign finance rules, just to keep from getting a harder sentence for tax evasion. That was a political plea bargain intended to hurt Trump.

It's all fun and games and the players with the most money get the best hands.

[Chris]

I think multiple throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall-and-hope-it-stocks charges happen mainly in high-profile cases driven by Woke social justice.

[Chris]

Sentencing in 15 minutes. Live...

[Adelaide]

I think the judge will side with the prosecution's request - she made a compelling argument grounded in case law and based on the facts of the case, while the defense attorneys apparently forgot how to form full sentences and yammered on ad nauseum. The prosecutor eviscerated the idea these were just first-time offenders who had engaged in "neighborhood watch" and that they cannot show remorse due to upcoming trials (true to an extent, but the prosecutor pointed out they released tapes to the media several months after being charged to try and prove their innocence, showing they did not regret their actions and can/do violate their right to not engage in self-incrimination when it suits them).

[Chris]

Here we go...

[Chris]

Travis, no remorse, life w/o possibility of parole plus 20 years concurrent

Gregory, no remorse, life w/o possibility of parole plus 20 years concurrent

Rodney, remorse, life with the possibility of parole, 15 years suspended